ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER AND OTHERS

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER AND OTHERS

The Court held that a binding oral settlement was made when the 2nd Defendant, through his counsel in open court, accepted the Plaintiff's drop-hands offer; that acceptance merged the causes of action into the settlement and authorised the judge to make the consent order discharging the Mareva and Anton Piller undertakings and releasing the HK$5,000,000; allegations of duress, undue influence or judicial bias were insufficient to set aside the settlement; the application for leave was dismissed and costs were awarded against the 2nd Defendant.

Citation
ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 1st Defendant: ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER; 2nd Defendant: LEE KOK LAM; 3rd Defendant: wong WANG, GWYNETH; 4th Defendant: LEE KA PO, LANCY; 5th Defendant: FANTASTIQUE INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 6th Defendant: WARP POWER INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED; 7th Defendant: ESECUREPAY.COM CORPORATION; 8th Defendant: TRI-TEL LIMITED; 9th Defendant: ASIA TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED; 10th Defendant: INTERNATIONAL TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 May 2011
Case Number
HCMP196/2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From High Court Civil Trial/consent Order / Court of Appeal Hearing on Application for Leave to Appeal (hcmp 196/2011)
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Consent Order, Oral Settlement, Drop Hands Settlement, Mareva Injunction, Anton Piller Order, Binding Authority of Counsel, Duress/undue Influence, Release of Security, Costs Assessment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Commercial Litigation Equity Injunctions Costs Agency and Authority of Counsel Settlement Law Consent Order +8 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Plaintiff

ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER

1st Defendant

LEE KOK LAM

2nd Defendant

wong WANG, GWYNETH

3rd Defendant

LEE KA PO, LANCY

4th Defendant

FANTASTIQUE INVESTMENTS LIMITED

5th Defendant

WARP POWER INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED

6th Defendant

ESECUREPAY.COM CORPORATION

7th Defendant

TRI-TEL LIMITED

8th Defendant

ASIA TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

9th Defendant

INTERNATIONAL TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

10th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From High Court Civil Trial/consent Order / Court of Appeal Hearing on Application for Leave to Appeal (hcmp 196/2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral open offer accepted by a party through counsel in open court created a binding settlement agreement enforceable by consent order
  2. 2 Whether private communications in the judge's chambers amounted to judicial bias or undue pressure vitiating the settlement
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Defendant could set aside the consent order on grounds of duress, misrepresentation or lack of knowledge of settlement terms

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that a binding oral settlement was made when the 2nd Defendant, through his counsel in open court, accepted the Plaintiff's drop-hands offer; that acceptance merged the causes of action into the settlement and authorised the judge to make the consent order discharging the Mareva and Anton Piller undertakings and releasing the HK$5,000,000; allegations of duress, undue influence or judicial bias were insufficient to set aside the settlement; the application for leave was dismissed and costs were awarded against the 2nd Defendant.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's claim against the 2nd Defendant and the 2nd Defendant's counterclaim withdrawn with no order as to costs save those already taxed and paid
  • Third Party Notice Claiming Contribution and Indemnity by 2nd Defendant against 1st Defendant withdrawn with no order as to costs